Archivebox Ingest Snapshots

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses exactly which nodes are written (:Snapshot, :Tag, :hasTag, per-snapshot :Document page-text, nested :ArchiveResult links), the engine used ('fast engine client'), and the best-effort failure mode ({"ingested": None} when no engine is reachable). It omits auth requirements and idempotency/re-run semantics, which keeps it from a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by write-target detail and a failure-mode note; every sentence carries information. Slightly dense with graph-node jargon but not padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be restated, and the description still flags the notable {"ingested": None} case. For a no-annotation ingest tool it covers what is written and how it fails, leaving only auth and repeat-run behavior unstated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and params_json is documented in-schema as 'JSON string of get_snapshots filters'. The description adds no filter syntax or examples beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific compound verb and resource: 'List ArchiveBox snapshots and natively ingest them into epistemic-graph.' This distinguishes it from sibling archivebox_get_snapshots (list only) and archivebox_ingest_archiveresults (different resource), so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the verb ('list and ingest'), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative among the many siblings. An agent must infer that this is the ingest path versus the plain get/list tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.